Support NeoGAF

[SUPREME1]

but its the top 1% of americas job to foot 50% of the bill.

lol

what pisses me off more than anything is when people pay no income taxes and yet still get tax returns because of EITC at the end of the year. why work when i can have 6 kids and get 20 grand tax free every year

Because 20 grand ain't sh*t for even two people?

I think most people would rather work.

 

[LM4sure]

Hmmm, tax 30 million people who really need that money because, you know, THEY'RE POOR or take it from the rich fucks who don't need it anyway. Such a morally difficult question! I almost feel sorry for the rich.

:lol

Yeah, the rich people don't "need" their money, so the government should just take it. Give me a fuckin break! Why is it the burden of the successful people to cover all the poor people? Let the poor pay a small percentage. Since they make so little anyway it would be a pittance.

 

[CharlieDigital]

Yeah, the rich people don't "need" their money, so the government should just take it. Give me a fuckin break! Why is it the burden of the successful people to cover all the poor people? Let the poor pay a small percentage. Since they make so little anyway it would be a pittance.

Wow...

So disheartening and sad.

 

[Ferrio]

This thread disgusts me.

 

[Anno]

that has absolutely nothing to do with what is going on in this thread.

The last two pages have been mainly random rants by different sides of the issue. The thread stopped being about just the inquities of a progressive tax system long ago. If you want my comments on that then I'll say that, again, plenty of people abuse it but I don't think that's it's terribly out of order where it stands. Rich people have the money right and now and need to pony up some more. In the future when the economy recovers hopefully everyone can chip in more money before interest on the debt bankrupts us.

I admit I'm bitter about the issue which probably contributed to my little rant, but, eh.

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

Eh, household income of ~175k is top 5%, ~350k is top 1%. Married people he works with could easily be clearing into the top ~3-5%, while upper management or owners (if he works at a small company) could be pushing into the top 1%.

A lot of what people are complaining about in this thread is restricted to a much smaller fraction of the top 1%. You have to remember that in a country of 300+ million people, that one percent is still pretty goddamn big.

Holy shit, I'm in the top 5%. I'm going to go re-register GOP right away!

 

[GaimeGuy]

Why is it the burden of the successful people to cover all the poor people? Let the poor pay a small percentage. Since they make so little anyway it would be a pittance.

Because there's no point on having a society or a government at all if the prevailing ideology is that everyone should just fend for themselves?

Because the marginal utility of increasing your wealth decreases the more money you have?

Because the wealthier you are, the fewer constraints their are on you from increasing your wealth, since you have more money to use after paying for necessities, and thus, the disporportionately wealthy are disproportionally more able to increase their wealth? In other words, wealth inequality arises and grows not because the poor become lazy or lazier, but because the wealthy become wealthier.

Wealth grows superlinearly, nay, exponentially, and the rate at which wealth increases changes likewise. So it only makes sense to have the wealthiest individuals in a society pay a higher percentage of taxes than the percentage of wealth they represent.

 

[Evolved1]

Holy shit, I'm in the top 5%. I'm going to go re-register GOP right away!

You and 15,300,000 other people...

 

[GoutPatrol]

For everyone saying taxes aren't fair: NO. They are fair. They're trying to make it fairer. For the people at the bottom.

 

[Asmodai]

Lol at all the people in this thread thinking that the top 1% are billionaires :lol

The top 1% of a country with 300 million people is 3 million. They are the people making maybe 300 000 or more. There are only around a thousand billionaires in the world, they aren't the ones paying all of your taxes.

 

[Princess Carl]

The last two pages have been mainly random rants by different sides of the issue. The thread stopped being about just the inquities of a progressive tax system long ago. If you want my comments on that then I'll say that, again, plenty of people abuse it but I don't think that's it's terribly out of order where it stands. Rich people have the money right and now and need to pony up some more. In the future when the economy recovers hopefully everyone can chip in more money before interest on the debt bankrupts us.

I admit I'm bitter about the issue which probably contributed to my little rant, but, eh.

no worries man, im with you on that.

 

[Evolved1]

Lol at all the people in this thread thinking that the top 1% are billionaires :lol

Just curious... who said this?

 

[avaya]

Corporate profits should be re-patriated to the country in which they are generated so they pay the correct tax in their respective jurisdiction.

Those shitty little tax havens should be given the Fallujah treatment or better still become new nuclear testing grounds. There should be international co-operation on this issue so no one can evade.

The rich should pay a higher rate of marginal tax because they have far more to lose.

Lower income households should pay a lower rate of income tax because they subsidise the rich.

Employees registering as corporations and exempting themselves from income tax should be banned.

There should be a target income divide that a government should aim to maintain.

Capital gains tax should have a marginal rate structure introduced.

A 1-2 cent flat Tobin tax should be introduced on every financial transaction.

All government subsidies to coporations or industrial sectors should be rescinded unless they are critical to function. Agriculture does not fill that criteria.

All export/import duty should be abolished.

Supernormal profits generated by oligopolists/monopolists should be taxed when the government sees fit to do so. There should be international co-operation to enable this so no one can evade.

Political donations should be banned and corporations should be barred from holding fundraisers or affiliating with political parties.

All elected officials should have a 2 term limit.

 

[giga]

Lol at all the people in this thread thinking that the top 1% are billionaires :lol

The top 1% of a country with 300 million people is 3 million. They are the people making maybe 300 000 or more. There are only around a thousand billionaires in the world, they aren't the ones paying all of your taxes.

Top 1% is closer to 400,000 now. Top .1% are the millionaires.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

You and 15,300,000 other people...

I would have guessed I was more in the 70s-80s. Of course, that's because my wife makes good money, which means high child care costs.

 

[frankthurk]

Holy shit, I'm in the top 5%. I'm going to go re-register GOP right away!

Heh, me too. Except I still think many of the GOP policies are only beneficial even to the top 5% if you're being short-sighted about it.

 

[Mr. Blonde]

Don't forget that everyone has that 8% taken out for SS and Medicare taxes

 

[Yaweee]

Just curious... who said this?

People didn't explicitly say that, but that seems to be how a lot of people are acting. The US is a huge country, and most of the replies in this thread aren't appreciating how many ways there are to get wealthy; there might be some super-duper mega wealthy that never do "real" work (whatever the fuck that means), but there are plenty of researchers, patent holders, lawyers, doctors, dentists, school superintendents, entertainers, and small-business owners that make enough to land in the top 5 or 1 percent of household incomes. Yes, the capital gains tax needs to be revised, but investment or running a huge corporation aren't the only ways to wealth in the United States.

 

[Asmodai]

Corporate profits should be re-patriated to the country in which they are generated so they pay the correct tax in their respective jurisdiction.

Those shitty little tax havens should be given the Fallujah treatment or better still become new nuclear testing grounds. There should be international co-operation on this issue so no one can evade.

The rich should pay a higher rate of marginal tax because they have far more to lose.

Lower income households should pay a lower rate of income tax because they subsidise the rich.

Employees registering as corporations and exempting themselves from income tax should be banned.

There should be a target income divide that a government should aim to maintain.

Capital gains tax should have a marginal rate structure introduced.

A 1-2 cent flat Tobin tax should be introduced on every financial transaction.

All government subsidies to coporations or industrial sectors should be rescinded unless they are critical to function. Agriculture does not fill that criteria.

All export/import duty should be abolished.

Supernormal profits generated by oligopolists/monopolists should be taxed when the government sees fit to do so. There should be international co-operation to enable this so no one can evade.

Political donations should be banned and corporations should be barred from holding fundraisers or affiliating with political parties.

All elected officials should have a 2 term limit.

Too bad "should" doesn't mean anything, eh? :lol

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

Heh, me too. Except I still think many of the GOP policies are only beneficial even to the top 5% if you're being short-sighted about it.

I am not at all serious.

 

[Nerevar]

Corporate profits should be re-patriated to the country in which they are generated so they pay the correct tax in their respective jurisdiction.

Those shitty little tax havens should be given the Fallujah treatment or better still become new nuclear testing grounds. There should be international co-operation on this issue so no one can evade.

The rich should pay a higher rate of marginal tax because they have far more to lose.

Lower income households should pay a lower rate of income tax because they subsidise the rich.

Employees registering as corporations and exempting themselves from income tax should be banned.

There should be a target income divide that a government should aim to maintain.

Capital gains tax should have a marginal rate structure introduced.

A 1-2 cent flat Tobin tax should be introduced on every financial transaction.

All government subsidies to coporations or industrial sectors should be rescinded unless they are critical to function. Agriculture does not fill that criteria.

All export/import duty should be abolished.

Supernormal profits generated by oligopolists/monopolists should be taxed when the government sees fit to do so. There should be international co-operation to enable this so no one can evade.

Political donations should be banned and corporations should be barred from holding fundraisers or affiliating with political parties.

All elected officials should have a 2 term limit.

 

[Pseudo_Sam]

You're like a 19 year old JayDubya in training, but without the basic grasp or rhetoric, logic or linguistics.

I don't understand. In context, it would appear you are basing this assessment on me saying that my liberal friends are basically unaware of the finer issues at stake - that all they discuss or are knowledgeable about is what they watch to television. That is a true statement, and certainly not something to get worked up over. I mean, that wasn't some blanket statement about all liberals something. Just thought I'd clear that up.

As an aside, it would seem many people here are interchanging "Libertarianism" and "Anarchism". Do not do this. While it may be somewhat more applicable to the rest of the world, in America, Libertarianism is usually associated more with the free market ideology.


Anarchism: There is no government. There is no order. Your neighbor starts fucking a goat in your lawn, the only thing you could do is forcefully stop them yourself or wait for some posse of pissed-off citizens to storm his house and take him away.

Libertarianism: There is a (small) government. There is order. You cannot do anything you want. There is no degeneration into a rape-filled, goat-fucking orgy, because you cannot do anything that infringes on the personal freedom of others, and if you try to, the police will come and take you away.


Of course, many variations exist, but this is neither the time nor place.

 

[fortified_concept]

I don't understand. In context, it would appear you are basing this assessment on me saying that my liberal friends are basically unaware of the finer issues at stake - that all they discuss or are knowledgeable about is what they watch to television. That is a true statement, and certainly not something to get worked up over. I mean, that wasn't some blanket statement about all liberals something. Just thought I'd clear that up.

As an aside, it would seem many people here are interchanging "Libertarianism" and "Anarchism". Do not do this. While it may be somewhat more applicable to the rest of the world, in America, Libertarianism is usually associated more with the free market ideology.


Anarchism: There is no government. There is no order. Your neighbor starts fucking a goat in your lawn, the only thing you could do is forcefully stop them yourself or wait for some posse of pissed-off citizens to storm his house and take him away.

Libertarianism: There is a (small) government. There is order. You cannot do anything you want. There is no degeneration into a rape-filled, goat-fucking orgy, because you cannot do anything that infringes on the personal freedom of others, and if you try to, the police will come and take you away.


Of course, many variations exist, but this is neither the time nor place.

Jesus christ, you can't even make a distinction between social and economic anarchism. Start with that and then try to reply to my posts. Noone in this thread is saying social and economic anarchism are the same, they're making comparisons to help you understand that they're equally absurd.

 

[levious]

Employees registering as corporations and exempting themselves from income tax should be banned.

you mean like a self-employed small business man? Then no one would go into business for themselves if they're personally liable for everything.

All export/import duty should be abolished.

say goodbye to domestic products then

 

[avaya]

you mean like a self-employed small business man? Then no one would go into business for themselves if they're personally liable for everything.

No the practice of employees working for large multinational corporations setting up a company for $/£ 1 and then working under a consulting contract in order to stay capped at the corporation tax rate along with all exemptions available to them which would bring their effective tax rate below corporation tax. Individuals in the top tax bracket will generally benefit from this since they have used a legal loophole to evade tax.

This costs billions every year in lost revenue.

EDIT: the loss of domestic products is not an issue, since consumption is global there is no need to prop up inefficient domestic producers.

 

[Pseudo_Sam]

For the record:

I know that -gasp- most people have the sense of right and wrong. That's why why should make legal rape and murder and let the society sort it self out. It'll become self sustained!

...seems like a very clear example of someone confusing Anarchism with Libertarianism. You suggest that my viewpoint - Libertarianism - condones making rape and murder legal.


But really, the explanation wasn't for you, because I don't like you, and I realize that anything I say will be met with a thousand critiques that I don't have the time to answer. I'm sure you feel the same way. We have very different opinions on right and wrong, that much is for damn sure, and this thread certainly doesn't need us dragging it down into the pits of OTness.

 

[Evolved1]

I don't understand. In context, it would appear you are basing this assessment on me saying that my liberal friends...

You keep calling them "friends" but I wonder if they'd agree if they read your contemptuous comments.

 

[Atrus]

No the practice of employees working for large multinational corporations setting up a company for $/£ 1 and then working under a consulting contract in order to stay capped at the corporation tax rate along with all exemptions available to them which would bring their effective tax rate below corporation tax. Individuals in the top tax bracket will generally benefit from this since they have used a legal loophole to evade tax.

This costs billions every year in lost revenue.

EDIT: the loss of domestic products is not an issue, since consumption is global there is no need to prop up inefficient domestic producers.

There are already Employer vs. Employee rules when it comes to contracting relationships in tax laws. However, subcontracting is supposed to work that way.

How is this lost revenue by the way? Taxpayer's who create corporations are taxed on their revenues once at the corporate tax rate and then taxed again on their personal income taxes whose rates depend on whether they gain directorship fees or dividends.

 

[CharlieDigital]

...seems like a very clear example of someone confusing Anarchism with Libertarianism. You suggest that my viewpoint - Libertarianism - condones making rape and murder legal.

You've missed the point of his hyperbole.

 

[Jason's Ultimatum]

say goodbye to domestic products then

What the hell does this even mean? Isn't the U.S. already surpassed when talking about produced goods by countries like China and India? U.S. makes nothing anymore.

And adding stupid tariffs is no good which basically just raises domestic prices on goods.

 

[GaimeGuy]

Don't forget that everyone has that 8% taken out for SS and Medicare taxes

6.2% of the income up to the social security wage base ($106,800 for 2009) , plus 1.45% of your entire wages.

So 7.65% of the income if you make no more than 106,800 dollars. This percentage decreases and tends towards 1.45% if your income is greater than $106,800 , though.

Like I said, it's a regressive tax.

 

[Pseudo_Sam]

You keep calling them "friends" but I wonder if they'd agree if they read your contemptuous comments.

:lol

They know how I feel about their views - they feel the same way about mine. I tell them all the time I think they're uninformed and, in some cases, wrong. They tell me all the time I need to get a life. It's all good.

Most of us have been together since grade school; it would take more than politics to split us apart.

 

[avaya]

There are already Employer vs. Employee rules when it comes to contracting relationships in tax laws. However, subcontracting is supposed to work that way.

How is this lost revenue by the way? Taxpayer's who create corporations are taxed on their revenues once at the corporate tax rate and then taxed again on their personal income taxes whose rates depend on whether they gain directorship fees or dividends.

I do not know how it works in the US extacly but in the UK you avoid paying National Insurance, which is social security tax, this way and it is a method that is used by everyone in the top bracket almost without fail.

 

[Chinner]

libertarians are like a capitalists wet dream.

 

[fortified_concept]

You've missed the point of his hyperbole.

I even made it clear to him a few posts up and he's still not getting it. This guy either can't read or he's being willfully dense.

 

[MWS Natural]

The wealthy have more to lose from changes in government policy and the economy. So they have more of a vested interest in the government. Which is why they donate generously to campaigns. Everyday is a recession for the poor.

Basically. Shit has been the same for me before and after the "recession" :lol

 

[Atrus]

I do not know how it works in the US extacly but in the UK you avoid paying National Insurance, which is social security tax, this way and it is a method that is used by everyone in the top bracket almost without fail.

In Canada at least, there's an approximated gross up on dividends so that regardless of how you're recieving income from the corporation, the tax payable is the similar to that incurred had they recieved a salary.

You'll have to look if similar exists in the UK. Generally speaking, while corporations are useful tools in tax planning, they are almost never so straightforward. Most of the people that make claims generally have accountants doing all of the thinking and barely know how it is their funds are benefiting them.

This leads to many tax myths.

 

[MidgarBlowedUp]

There are two problems here.

1. Minimum Wage is a JOKE! It needs to be fixed. It has been calculated the same way for years by simply figuring up the cost of food. Nothing else is figured into it, not a car payment, not gas, not a house payment, not even the clothes on your back are figured into minimum wage.

2. People don't seem to understand how to live within their means. I don't know what to say here, they should teach you how to budget your needs vs wants in late middle school or early high school.

 

[Mr. Blonde]

6.2% of the income up to the social security wage base ($106,800 for 2009) , plus 1.45% of your entire wages.

So 7.65% of the income if you make no more than 106,800 dollars. This percentage decreases and tends towards 1.45% if your income is greater than $106,800 , though.

Like I said, it's a regressive tax.

I forgot about the cap, but I was just addressing the statement that poor people pay no income taxes. While technically true, they're still paying 8% of their income towards a tax.

 

[Amibguous Cad]

Id' rather give ppl "free" money than live in an unstable society, which is often the case where poor ppl receive very little help and the gap between the rich and the poor becomes insanely big...

But that's just me.

Yah. EITC kicks the crap out of welfare programs.

 

[Oblivion]

Why don't poor people just become, you know, rich (or at least not so poor, for god's sake
)? I think that would solve a lot of problems.

 

[Amibguous Cad]

Lower income households should pay a lower rate of income tax because they subsidise the rich.

Err? It sure looks to me like higher income people's taxes subsidize the poor. Not that they shouldn't be; I think wealth redistribution is a legitimate function of government, despite my libertarian leanings (though I'd prefer to do it in such a way as respects economic laws. EITC good, minimum wage bad).

All government subsidies to coporations or industrial sectors should be rescinded unless they are critical to function. Agriculture does not fill that criteria.

All export/import duty should be abolished.

I am intrigued by your ideas and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

Capital gains tax should have a marginal rate structure introduced.

Why do you want to tax people when they're being most productive? Encouraging investment is critical to a healthy economy.

If you want to make sure the rich pay their share, institute a consumption tax on people who make over $X per year, don't jack up the capital gains tax.

say goodbye to domestic products then

We'll be just fine. If we can't compete with the Japanese in making cars, better to let the Japanese make the cars, and buy better, cheaper products from them. In the meanwhile, we'll shift labor and capital into industries where we can do better than most of our neighbors, like agriculture, finance, high tech service jobs, etc.

Division of labor is as critical to a successfully functioning international economy as it is for a national one. It would be absurd if I preferred to use my own labor to produce things, rather than trading for them. I'm much better off specializing in becoming a lawyer and trading 10 minutes of my work for a bushel of corn than growing it myself.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparative_advantage

Supernormal profits generated by oligopolists/monopolists should be taxed when the government sees fit to do so. There should be international co-operation to enable this so no one can evade.

Buh? Why would you want to penalize companies that are creating value for society? If they're getting it through unscrupulous means and in such a manner as is not conducive to the common good, antitrust regulation and enforcement are way more intelligent ways to curtail it than taxing them afterward.

How do you think we keep up our lifestyle? America produces a lot of valuable stuff, it's just not physical stuff. There's a reason why a lawyer makes more than a menial laborer: generally, skilled labor is more valuable, since it is more scarce, and skilled labor tends to result in the production of services rather than physical goods.

We can parley our infrastructure and educational advantages over most of the world into solid export service industries, and use those to pay for the physical goods we want from other countries that have a comparative advantage in manual labor.

 

[Suikoguy]

Capital gains tax should have a marginal rate structure introduced.

A 1-2 cent flat Tobin tax should be introduced on every financial transaction.

I like both of these ideas.
The second one is hardly ever mentioned, and would help discourage the minute traders too.

 

[Yaweee]

I think the capital gains tax needs to be revised, but a marginal structure isn't the best solution. The problem with revising it is that it is often a lump cash-out after a years-long investment, which will too heavily tend it towards the upper marginal rates. What the solution is, I don't know, but it is treated differently for a reason (not just pandering to the wealthy).

 

[Oblivion]

I had a hilariously sad conversation with my roommate a while back.

Him: Why should the rich get taxed more? They worked their asses off to get where they are. If you taxed the rich people like Obama wants, nobody would have the incentive to work hard.
Me: Wait, a 3% tax increase on the people who make more than $250k a year is gonna cause somebody to not want to aspire to be rich?
Him: Yep.
Me: So you're trying to tell me that if I worked at McDonald's for say $20k a year (I was being very generous), I wouldn't want to try and get a job that would get me $250k because I would be taxed SOOO much that it just wouldn't be worth the effort, even if I'd still be making AT LEAST $100k more than what I'm making now?
Him: Yes, because your new expenses would be proportional to what you were making when you were at McDonald's.
Me: ....
Him: I'M JUST SAYING JOSE AND HIS FAMILY ARE TAKING OUR JERBS!!

 

[ronito]

As my boss told me a few months ago "Thank GOD I don't have to pay the level of taxes YOU guys do. ha ha! what a disaster that'd be. You guys get so screwed."

Thanks boss.

 

[teh_pwn]

Not to beat a dead horse, but when talking about taxes and the rich you need to talk about Capital Gains tax. Income tax holds as much relevance as sales tax or property tax with the rich. The bulk of their money comes off long term capital gains from stocks. And yes, long term stocks always make ~9% average annualized interest. Meaning that you double your money every 8 years. So if your net worth is about 100 million dollars, you can blindly put that money into a few broad stock index funds, and on average you'll make about 12 million dollars in capital gains income per year sitting on your ass. And rich people get this taxed at 15%. Meanwhile a hard working middle class family with two working parents earning 70k family income get taxed 25%. And if that doesn't seem unfair enough, consider the effect of the rich guy reinvesting the gains and letting them compound.

 

[GavinGT]

I'm starting to believe that capitalism just grants us an illusion of freedom such that we'll never get angry enough to revolt. It's like rich people fashioned our modern economy in direct reaction to Marx.

 

[GaimeGuy]

Not to beat a dead horse, but when talking about taxes and the rich you need to talk about Capital Gains tax. Income tax holds as much relevance as sales tax or property tax with the rich. The bulk of their money comes off long term capital gains from stocks. And yes, long term stocks always make ~9% average annualized interest. Meaning that you double your money every 8 years. So if your net worth is about 100 million dollars, you can blindly put that money into a few broad stock index funds, and on average you'll make about 12 million dollars in capital gains income per year sitting on your ass. And rich people get this taxed at 15%. Meanwhile a hard working middle class family with two working parents earning 70k family income get taxed 25%. And if that doesn't seem unfair enough, consider the effect of the rich guy reinvesting the gains and letting them compound.

but he worked hard to get rich, so he deserves it!

 

[Evolved1]

Not to beat a dead horse, but when talking about taxes and the rich you need to talk about Capital Gains tax. Income tax holds as much relevance as sales tax or property tax with the rich. The bulk of their money comes off long term capital gains from stocks. And yes, long term stocks always make ~9% average annualized interest. Meaning that you double your money every 8 years. So if your net worth is about 100 million dollars, you can blindly put that money into a few broad stock index funds, and on average you'll make about 12 million dollars in capital gains income per year sitting on your ass. And rich people get this taxed at 15%. Meanwhile a hard working middle class family with two working parents earning 70k family income get taxed 25%. And if that doesn't seem unfair enough, consider the effect of the rich guy reinvesting the gains and letting them compound.

This is true.

But I have to agree with what Yaweee was getting at in an earlier post, that throwing a number out there like "100 million dollar net worth" is not representative of the norm... even for the very rich. It's unlikely that someone, even the top 2%, would be worth one hundred million dollars. It doesn't in any way detract from the validity of the point you're trying to make, but I think it'd be better for everyone if we did a better job presenting accurate examples... keeping it representative.

And with that I realize I'm probably too sauced for EconomicsGaf and thank Dawkins for spellcheck otherwise something, something... ZZZzzzZZZZZzzzzz.